Defendant, Black & Decker, Inc., has moved for summary judgment in this
products liability case. The motion hinges on the admissibility of
plaintiffs' expert testimony concerning whether a toaster oven
manufactured by Black & Decker was the cause of a fire that severely
damaged plaintiffs' home. Upon consideration of the motion, plaintiffs'
response, and the evidentiary record, including the testimony of
plaintiffs' expert at Daubert hearings on January 4 and 10, 2001, the
motion of defendants will be granted.

Background

On September 13, 1996, the residence of plaintiffs was ravaged by a
fire. The parties agree that the fire began in the northeast corner of
the kitchen. A number of appliances were located in that area of the
kitchen, including a dishwasher, a toaster oven, and a microwave.
Plaintiffs assert
that the toaster oven caused the fire.*fn1 The toaster
oven was manufactured by Black & Decker, and purchased by plaintiffs
approximately three months before the fire took place.

Plaintiffs assert three causes of action: strict liability,
negligence, and breach of warranty. They respond to summary judgment in
cursory fashion, with five-page memorandum that relies completely upon
and incorporates by reference the arguments and evidence presented by
plaintiff in the related case Fanning v. Black & Decker, Civil Action No.
98-6141.*fn2 That case was settled as to Black & Decker, and dismissed
by stipulation as to Caldor Corporation. Plaintiff in the related case
focused on two theories of liability: design defect and manufacturing
defect.*fn3 Because plaintiffs in this case rely wholly on the arguments
and evidence of plaintiff in the related case, I address here only the
arguments and evidence advanced by plaintiff in the related case.

The crux of the motion for summary judgment is whether plaintiffs can
prove that the toaster oven was defective and caused the fire; plaintiffs
cannot succeed on any of their claims without proving defect and
causation. Plaintiffs proffer the expert testimony of Richard B. Thomas,
who is prepared to testify that the toaster oven was defective and caused
the fire. Black & Decker argues that plaintiffs' expert, is not qualified
to give his expert opinion as to a design or manufacturing defect in the
toaster oven or the cause of the fire, and that his testimony is
otherwise inadmissible.

This Court held two days of hearings on January 4 and 10, 2001, to
determine the admissibility of Thomas' testimony, at which Thomas
testified and explained photographs and images. Counsel for Black &
Decker participated, as did counsel for the estate of Edith Fanning in
the related case. Counsel for the Booths, plaintiffs in the instant
action, took no part in that hearing, despite having received notice of
it.

This Court concluded at the hearing that Thomas was qualified to
testify on "matters involving electrical aspects of consumer product
electrical devices, including a toaster oven. . . ." (Transcript of
Hearing on the Admissibility of Expert Testimony from Richard B. Thomas,
Document No. 39, Jan. 4, 2001, at 15) ("Thomas Hearing I"). I also
concluded that Thomas was qualified to interpret the results of a
scanning electron microscope examination. (Id. at 109.)

Thomas testified that at the outset of his investigation, there were
"two candidates for the cause of the fire, a microwave oven and a toaster
oven." (Transcript of Hearing on the Admissibility of Expert Testimony
from Richard B. Thomas, Document No. 40, Jan. 10, 2001, at 11) ("Thomas
Hearing II"). He was asked to examine both of them. He testified about
his examination and explained a number of photographs of the toaster. He
testified, "The condition of the [toaster] oven is certainly indicative
of the — it being the cause of the fire." (Id. at 17.) Thomas
explained his hypothesis of how the toaster oven caused the fire: "[T]he
toaster oven overheated as a result of being kept on by a failure of the
main power contacts." (Id. at 18.)

Thomas testified that he had attempted to confirm his hypothesis by
examining the power contacts with a scanning electron microscope. This
involved removing the contacts from the toaster oven and placing them
under a scanning electron microscope to ascertain their condition. Thomas
explained that the contacts had indications of melting and scoring,
suggesting that the surfaces had welded. (Thomas Hearing II, at 61.)

Thomas also explained that the toaster oven was, in his opinion,
defectively designed because it lacked a high-temperature limit switch or
thermal cut-off device and because of an abundance of plastic material,
which has a low melting point. (Id. at 30-31.) He concluded that a
thermal cut-off device, which would shut off the power in the toaster
oven when it reached a certain temperature and thus prevent overheating,
could "easily" have been incorporated into the toaster oven at issue. He
based this conclusion on (1) "general knowledge of the devices and their
applications; (2) "the fact that [a thermal cut-off device] was
incorporated into a Canadian unit; and (3) on the testimony of one of the
manufacturer's representatives. (Thomas Hearing II, at 46.) Such a device
would have, in the opinion of Thomas, "possibly prevented the fire."
(Id.)

Thomas never conducted any testing to determine the maximum temperature
that might be reached in the toaster oven. (Id. at 73-74.) Nor did he
test his hypothesis by placing the toaster oven in an unregulated
condition to determine whether it would start a fire under such
circumstances. (Id. at 83-84.) Thomas did not conduct any testing or make
a model of the kind of ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.